More on the Torture Debate

sigh......how oh how can people be enticed to THINK!!

There are TWO issues:

Here's one --

Although I've mentioned this elsewhere in this blog [http://www.bobpielke.com/2008/12/bad-argument-for-torture-again.html], the typical "pro-torture" [PT] argument is fatally flawed in that it is invariably presented as a DEDUCTIVE argument when in reality the only possible "PT" argument is INDUCTIVE!

• Given that the only way to prevent innocent lives being lost in a terrorist attack is to torture a terrorist who can reveal the information sufficient to prevent the attack, then torture is justified.
• Well, "duh"!!!!
• The premise(s) already contains the conclusion!
• It's "circular" -- as are all deductive arguments!!
• That's why deductive arguments always have a conclusion that is certain!

The issue is whether ANY of the claims implicit in the premise can be established!

• Why is this only way?
• How can we know if the terrorist knows the information?
• These questions require EVIDENCE -- hence INDUCTIVE reasoning.
• BUT -- we can NEVER know if we have ALL the evidence!
• Hence, inductive reasoning can NEVER produce a conclusion with certainty.
• ALL evidentiary claims are MORE OR LESS PROBABLE -- ONLY

The other issue is one of morality --

It's the question as to whether this issue is deontological or teleological!

1. Teleological arguments always maintain that the amount of desirable consequences is how we should determine what's right and wrong. [How much good over evil is likely to be produced.]

2. Deontological arguments always maintain that right and wrong are determined by the intrinsic qualities of the act itself -- regardless of the consequences.

Take note -- much of the debate over torture is really a debate over which form of moral reasoning applies!

And...there is NO WAY TO ANSWER THIS DILEMMA!!

Why?

Good question...glad you asked!

It's because when you argue for one of these approaches you MUST MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT. [We should reason as teleologists!]

Hahahha....but you can't DO this!! You are USING one of the two forms of reasoning -- to justify the form of reasoning you are using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!

Knock! Knock! Knock! Knock! "Arnold's Not Here!"

Ok...it's in the NYT, so it must be true, right?!

Arnold is advocating a STUDY regarding legalization?

Yup!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html?ref=us

And there's actually a BILL being introduced to accomplish this very thing??

Yup!

"As California faces a massive budget deficit, the time is indeed right for political discussion of the possible merits of legalizing marijuana. In fact, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D) introduced Bill AB 390 seeking to permit legal marijuana usage to persons over the age 0f 21. "

What next?!?!?!

• Equal rights for all Americans??!


• An end to war??! ["if you want it"]


• Peace Love and Understanding??

LOST

A quote from Honorius Augustodunensis [died 1151] a Christian non-"scholastic" [no Thomas Aquinas = no hard-core Catholic] cleric.

The following tidbits I lifted from a few places on the Web:

His most important work was the Imago mundi, an encyclopedia of popular cosmology and geography combined with a chronicle of world history. It was translated into many different vernacular languages and was very popular throughout the medieval period. It contained, among other things, a scheme for the operation of guardian angels.

"There lies in the Ocean an island which is called The Lost. In Charm and all kinds of fertility it far surpasses every other land, but it is unknown to men. Now and again it may be found by chance; but if one seeks it, it cannot be found, and therefore it is called The Lost. "

Joe Klein's "Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense"

OK, every pot smoker in the open and behind closed doors can celebrate the question of legalization being discussed rationally and openly -- FOR THE FIRST FUCKING TIME -- in TIME Magazine -- Not NOT THYME!

In case you haven't seen Joe Klein's opinion piece, here's the link:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html

Oh...and as for Obama's recent simple and stupid "NO" to the question of legalization in that online "Town Meeting"???...he should KNOW better!

Hmmmmm......where can I get some of that "Pineapple Express"!????

Legalize It!

"Support CA Legalization Bill - AB 390 - Mar 31st Hearing

NORML is writing you today with MAJOR news from Sacramento.

California's first-ever marijuana legalization bill, Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, is tentatively scheduled for a hearing before the Committee on Public Safety and Health on Tuesday, March 31.

To date, we know that over 4,000 of you have e-mailed your California state assemblymen and urged him or her to support AB 390. This is a terrific show of force, but we need to step up our lobbying efforts THIS WEEK!

The Committee is expected to vote on this proposal immediately following the hearing so it is vital that you contact your elected officials, and the members of the Public Safety Committee in particular, and urge them to support AB 390 TODAY!

Contact information, including e-mail addresses and phone numbers for the members of the Committee, is available here. Please write and call them today!
Please tell them that AB 390 would:

Restrict access to marijuana to those under age 21;
Raise over $1 billion dollars in annual tax revenue;
And improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to focus on more serious crimes.

You may also send letters in support of this measure to your state assemblyman by going here:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12758896

For additional information on this hearing, please contact California NORML. California NORML also has fliers you can download in support of AB 390 available here. Because the date of this hearings is subject to change, please log on here prior to 3/31 to confirm the bill's status.

Thank you for supporting NORML's marijuana law reform efforts in California.

Sincerely, The NORML Team "

Bailouts, Bonuses, Bills of Attainder and Bull Shit

Are you confused about the current controversy over the A.I.G. bonuses to induce thieves and idiots to keep their positions?

Of course you are!

You are no doubt particularly confused over why anyone would oppose taxing those "mother fuckers" on 90% of these million dollar bonuses.

Well, I am here today to explain why someone might rise in opposition.....it's called The Constitution of The United States of America!

Here's what it says [from Http://www.techlawjournal.com]:

"Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

"Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

"Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984)."

Now, the proposed tax would, in effect, abrogate existing contracts. So....is it a "bill of attainder"??

Good question...glad you asked!

Lincoln -- "Not a Fan of Black People"?!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Paul McCartney Appearance

Funny Political Videos
More Funny Videos

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is right: Lincoln was always opposed to slavery, yet "was not a fan of black people." He was a man of his times...progressive for the times...but of his times. Full social equality was at that time an inconceivable goal. [It still is for a lot of homosapiens!]

But..while Gates refers to Lincoln's views in 1858, they did dramatically change when he actually met black people -- notably Fredrick Douglas. Here's something from Douglas's autobiography:

"The increasing opposition to the war, in the North, and the mad cry against it, because it was being made an abolition war, alarmed Mr. Lincoln, and made him apprehensive that a peace might be forced upon him which would leave still in slavery all who had not come within our lines. What he wanted was to make his Proclamation as effective as possible in the event of such a peace. He said in a regretful tone, 'The slaves are not coming so rapidly and so numerously to us as I had hoped.' I replied that the slaveholders knew how to keep such things from their slaves, and probably very few knew of his Proclamation. 'Well,' he said, 'I want you to set about devising some means of making them acquainted with it, and for bringing them into our lines. He spoke with great earnestness and much solicitude, and seemed troubled by the attitude of Mr. Greeley, and the growing impatience there was being manifested through the North at the war. He said he was being accused of protracting the war beyond its legitimate object, and of failing to make peace, when he might have done so to advantage. He was afraid of what might come of all these complaints, but was persuaded that no solid and lasting peace could come short of absolute submission on the part of the rebels, and he was not for giving them rest by futile conferences at Niagara Falls, or elsewhere, with unauthorized persons. He saw the danger of premature peace, and, like a thoughtful and sagacious man as he was, he wished to provide means of rendering such consummation as harmless as possible. I was the more impressed by his benevolent consideration because he before said, in answer to the peace clamor, that his object was to save the Union, and to do so with or without slavery. What he said on this day showed a deeper moral conviction against slavery than I had even seen before in anything spoken or written by him. I listened with the deepest interest and profoundest satisfaction, and, at his suggestion, agreed to undertake the organizing of a band of scouts, composed of colored men, whose business should be somewhat after the original plan of John Brown, to go into the rebel states, beyond the lines of our armies, and carry the news of emancipation, and urge the slaves to come within our boundaries."

I regard Lincoln as having been our finest president -- but I don't "worship" him....nor should any one.

In fact no one or thing should ever be "worshipped"! [But that's an issue for another time.]

Marijuana: Legalization vs Decriminalization

Here's a recent [12/15/08] Q & A copied from Obama's "change.gov" site/blog:

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

This discussion was closed, so I couldn't ask if P-EO would favor "decriminalization." The L and the D of marijuana are very different.

As suggested by the Q, L would entail many and various changes and accommodations while greatly assisting the federal budget. It would also be severely contentious.

D would entail far far less, and be far less politically explosive. It would only entail not penalizing persons for personal use and cultivation (for adults) -- period! And the justification seems obvious: it's called no harm, no foul in sports. John Stuart Mill referred to it in the context of his "Harm Principle." There is a moral standard here -- thou shalt not penalize anyone who acts in such a way as to bring harm or the possibility of harm upon no one but oneself. [The Eleventh Commandment??]

This would bring NO public outrage whatsoever! Sure, there would be some who think this would be a big step along the way toward legalization.

So be it!

The Bad Argument for Torture -- Again!!

What IS the "bad argument for torture"?

Good question -- glad you asked.

You all already know what it is. It's the only argument torture advocates [TA's] use to make their case, and it's so obviously "bad" [a fallacy, in philosophy-speak] that I'm amazed TA's still use it. [See one of my earlier blogs.]

Here it is, in case you need a refresher:

If you knew for sure [and this is the key point] that you could extract crucial information from a particular person that would save lives, prevent a catastrophe, end genocide, etc, etc, etc. by torturing this person, wouldn't you gladly do it?

Well, what's wrong with this argument, you say?

Another good question -- glad you asked.

What's wrong with it is that it's perfect!!!!

What?

That's right....IT'S PERFECT!

How can this be, you wonder?

....glad you asked!

Here it is schematized as logicians are wont to do:

P: Person X has information that would prevent event E from happening.
P: Person can be persuaded to give up this information only by means of torture.
P: It is highly desirable to prevent E from happening.
C: Therefore Person X should be tortured.

PERFECT!

And by "perfect" I mean that given the premises, the conclusion must follow with absolute certainty -- and it does!!

That's precisely the problem! NO moral argument is capable of doing this. If it were, then there would be no moral disputes whatsoever. And the last time I checked....this is not the case. All moral arguments allege that something is good or right or obligatory based on more general moral principles -- which are almost always in dispute. But more important, there is nothing in a moral argument that can assert factual certainty....because there is no such thing as factual certainty -- about anything -- factual claims are only more or less probable....never certain!!

To put it in philosophy-speak, this argument is actually inductive [leading to a conclusion that is more or less probable] in nature, but it pretends to be deductive [leading to a conclusion that is absolutely certain].

The second premise about is a factual claim -- and therefore only more or less probable. But it is used as if it were logically certain, like "all dogs are animals."

Again in philosophy-speak, THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR! IT BEGS THE QUESTION! IT'S FALLACIOUS!

So, TA's now that you are enlightened, will you stop being so STUPID! [See one of my earlier blogs on "stupidity"!] If this is your only argument, and it is, then there is NO reason to torture whatsoever!

O.J...Guilty...???

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

What in the hell are we going to do now.....?? O.J. in jail for a felony -- is there nothing holy?

Who could possibly believe that this "paragon of virtue" [He has devoted his life to finding the "real" killer of Nicole and Ron, right?!] has intentionally injured, or threatened to injure, anyone?!

Well, I know 12 jurors [from so long ago] who wouldn't have convicted him on these trumped-up charges -- they are still walking around and breathing and, no doubt, outraged?!

Right??

Awwwwwww....I'm only kidding. Those 12 jurors from so long ago....KNEW he killed N and R....sure they did...that's WHY they declared him "not guilty"! THEY DID IT INTENTIONALLY. After all, NO one could be STUPID enough to think he was innocent!!

NO ONE!

That's right...absolutely EVERYONE on the planet who even rarely followed that infamous trial KNEW he did it...and they still do!

So did this jury in Las Vegas!

Did they vote "pay-back" this time?

Probably...

Do I care???

Hmmm....good question...glad you asked!

Researchers find oldest-ever stash of marijuana

[From CBC News]

November 28, 2008

The Canadian Press

Researchers say they have located the world's oldest stash of marijuana, in a tomb in a remote part of China.

The cache of cannabis is about 2,700 years old and was clearly "cultivated for psychoactive purposes," rather than as fibre for clothing or as food, says a research paper in the Journal of Experimental Botany.

The 789 grams of dried cannabis was buried alongside a light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian man, likely a shaman of the Gushi culture, near Turpan in northwestern China.
The extremely dry conditions and alkaline soil acted as preservatives, allowing a team of scientists to carefully analyze the stash, which still looked green though it had lost its distinctive odour.
"To our knowledge, these investigations provide the oldest documentation of cannabis as a pharmacologically active agent," says the newly published paper, whose lead author was American neurologist Dr. Ethan B. Russo.

Remnants of cannabis have been found in ancient Egypt and other sites, and the substance has been referred to by authors such as the Greek historian Herodotus. But the tomb stash is the oldest so far that could be thoroughly tested for its properties.
The 18 researchers, most of them based in China, subjected the cannabis to a battery of tests, including carbon dating and genetic analysis. Scientists also tried to germinate 100 of the seeds found in the cache, without success.

'Unequivocally cannabis,' say researchers

The marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, but the sample was too old to determine a precise percentage.
Researchers also could not determine whether the cannabis was smoked or ingested, as there were no pipes or other clues in the tomb of the shaman, who was about 45 years old.
The large cache was contained in a leather basket and in a wooden bowl, and was likely meant to be used by the shaman in the afterlife.

"This materially is unequivocally cannabis, and no material has previously had this degree of analysis possible," Russo said in an interview from Missoula, Mont.
"It was common practice in burials to provide materials needed for the afterlife. No hemp or seeds were provided for fabric or food. Rather, cannabis as medicine or for visionary purposes was supplied."

The tomb also contained bridles, archery equipment and a harp, confirming the man's high social standing.

Russo is a full-time consultant with GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine approved in Canada for pain linked to multiple sclerosis and cancer.
Cannabis has roots in China

The company operates a cannabis-testing laboratory at a secret location in southern England to monitor crop quality for producing Sativex, and allowed Russo use of the facility for tests on 11 grams of the tomb cannabis.

Researchers needed about 10 months to cut red tape barring the transfer of the cannabis to England from China, Russo said.

The inter-disciplinary study was published this week by the British-based botany journal, which uses independent reviewers to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of all submitted papers.
The substance has been found in two of the 500 Gushi tombs excavated so far in northwestern China, indicating that cannabis was either restricted for use by a few individuals or was administered as a medicine to others through shamans, Russo said.
"It certainly does indicate that cannabis has been used by man for a variety of purposes for thousands of years." Russo, who had a neurology practice for 20 years, has previously published studies examining the history of cannabis.

"I hope we can avoid some of the political liabilities of the issue," he said, referring to his latest paper.

The region of China where the tomb is located, Xinjiang, is considered an original source of many cannabis strains worldwide.

_____________________________________________

The above is a news article [contributed by one of my many admirers!] I copied and pasted -- just for the hell of it. But it gives me a chance to opine on the subject of legalization:

1. Legalization and decriminalization are TWO different things. The LATTER I think is where NORML and others should begin.

2. What do I mean? See #3 --

3. The attempt to use the medical marijuana issue as an entree into legalization is wrong-headed. The major push should be to reform the penalties for personal use and personal cultivation to ZERO.

GOP! Get Back To Where You Once Belonged!!

Now that Mr. Unstable and Mrs. Idiot have exposed the fundamental contradictions in the Grand Old Party, you now have the opportunity to arrive at a new synthesis. (Ok, I know, I'm using a Marxist/Hegelian reference here. So sue me.)

The key is to remember where you came from.

First of all you are NOT a purely conservative party. (There aren't any such beasts in the US.) You stem from Adam Smith -- a genuine, classical LIBERAL!! And you were tempered by, and in many ways corrupted by, Social Darwinism (a la Andrew Carnegie.) And what do you take from this?

• a belief in individualism and individuality [oddly enough, like Marx!]
• an optimism about the free market [supply and demand stuff]
• self-reliance
• ethical egoism -- NOT egotism or ego-centrism or selfishness!! Rather a focus on striving for whatever you see as good for you -- a good that you determine for yourself.
• charity -- yes indeed, since it is to your benefit to be charitable!
• a government LIMITED in power and scope

Second, you have inherited SOME genuine CONSERVATIVE ideals, and these come to you courtesy of your "founding father," Abraham Lincoln:

• natural human rights [the idea that some rights are unalienable]
• the "Harm Principle" best expressed by John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Here's Mill's version: "....the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant..." [This, of course, is the essence of Libertarianism.]

Now when you get back to these roots, what do you have? Here's a few ideas, in no particular order:

• You stay out of my [this is the "imperial my"] bedroom! [I choose what sex I want]
• You stay out of my marriage! [I define what it is]
• You stay out of my ash try! [I smoke what I want]
• You stay out of my womb! [I choose whether or not to carry a fetus]
• You stay out of my religion or irreligion. [I choose to believe or not to believe anything]
• You stay out of science! [I don't base conclusion on who pays me]
• You stay out of other countries unless HARM is threatened!
• You stay out of torturing others -- period!

When you find some people who can represent these ideas, I just may vote for them -- hell, I may even run for office myself -- as a REPUBLICAN!

The Hidden Burden of Racism

Why do you think so many "whites" [and don't get me started on the absurdity of using colors to designate races] were absolutely ecstatic when one of the biggest barriers separating the races was destroyed?

Good question...glad you asked!

Here's why -- it's simple, really: When racists defame other races, they are implicitly "speaking on the behalf" of every member of the defaming race! Even if "white" persons, for example, utterly detest what is being alleged on their behalf, there's not a god-damn thing they can do about it. "That fellow isn't speaking for me!" Sure....that's really powerful!!

But on November 4th, I got a chance to say something positive -- for me! I voted for somebody that racists wouldn't vote for.

This time, they didn't get a chance to speak on my behalf!

I may have spoken on theirs!! HAH!

Do 538 Voters Chose the President? YES!

Call me a traditionalist -- I LIKE the Electoral College.

Now, don't confuse "traditionalism" with "conservatism" [in any of its meanings -- the word is notoriously vague AND ambiguous (and by the way "vague" and "ambiguous" are not the same thing!]

By "traditionalism" I mean having an appreciation for the importance and often the dignity of the past. Its part of who we are after all!

Some genuine "conservatives" [see one of my earlier blogs for an explanation] rely on the past as an epistemological guide. [Ok Ok OK...philosophy 101 -- "epistemology" = notions about how we understand or know what is true.]. These conservatives feel that if an idea or institution has lasted over the years it must have in its essence some truthiosity [that's my woodyallenization]. So the past can be a reliable guide for what we should do today and so on.

BUT...that's not me. I just feel that a conscious connection with our past is one way to understand and value our unique identity. OF COURSE I don't value ALL aspects of our past....no one does! We CHOOSE which elements of our past to value and dis-value. [That's some of my existentialism leaking out!]

I CHOOSE to value the 538 process.

I know....it can happen that somebody gets 270 electoral votes but does NOT get the plurality of the popular vote. Remember President Gore?!?! [There have been others.] Is this a bad thing? Sure! But there is something of value in presidential candidates vying for the support of diverse and often conflicting sections of the population. Otherwise, a candidate could easily win by focusing ONLY on population centers and IGNORING lightly populated areas, often with alternative-minded people. Why Alaska could be totally forgotten! [Hmmmmm....]

IQ BS

I bet no matter what IQ test you give me, I guarantee....that's right....GUARANTEE that I will get every answer correct!

How??

Good question, glad you asked!

Here's how: Given enough time and available resources, I'll just look up every answer or figure it out or learn how to do it!

But, you say, that would be "cheating"!

Why? Aren't these "instruments" supposed to test for "intelligence"? Well, if so, then let's eliminate the extraneous factors of time constraints and previously learned information!

If you want to retain these two factors then all you're testing for is "memory" and "recall speed"! AND as IQ advocates maintain, this is NOT what IQ tests are about?!

Really?? Huh???

What? You want to know my IQ??

I don't have the slightest idea....couldn't care less....couldn't give a shit....

"Going Negative" vs Logic

What's all this I hear about "going negative" in campaigning?

For one thing, this accusation is ambiguous as hell...or more so -- since "hell" isn't all that ambiguous!

Could it mean one side trying to point out the flaws and weaknesses in the positions of its opponent? If so, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR!

* What's at issue is whether or not the allegations are true, false or perhaps deceptive in one way or another. Most often the third option comes into play -- there's hardly one political ad that's not decptive -- not now...not ever!!

Or, could it mean one side trying to point out the flaws and weakenesses of the PERSONS VOICING the positions of it's opponent? If so, that's a logical fallacy, and it comes in at least two different flavors, and all flavors involve attacking the person making the argument -- not the argument itself.

One's called argumentum ad hominem abusive -and that's when the attack attempts to sully the character of the person making the argument. But, no matter what the character of the person making the case, the "making of the case" is what's at issue. "Bad" people can make "good" arguments, and vice-versa.

* So what if Obama or McCain "palled around" with nefarious people. How does that affect their position on the economic crisis we're in today??

The other's called argumentum ad hominem circumstantial - and that's when the attack attempts to point out that the person making the argument personally benefits if the argument is accepted. But so what? Is it necessary for a good argument to harm the person making it? Huh??

* So what if Obama or McCain would get tax benefits from their proposed tax schemes? How does that affect the legitimacy of their schemes??

In both cases...the attacks are irrelevant.

Posativa!

Posativa: NORML contest submission

Lipstick Serenade

The metaphor so "creatively" used by the Republicans has a rather long history!

Regarding lipstick....here's one:

“Adding sound to movies would be like putting lipstick on the Venus de Milo.”
(Mary Pickford)

But the form of the tactic is not restricted to that controversial tube of colored chemicals.

"President Lincoln had great doubt as to his right to emancipate the slaves under the War power. In discussing the question, he used to like the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, 'five,' to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg." (from The Project Gutenberg Etext of Lincoln's Yarns and Stories by Colonel Alexander K. McClure)

In other words, declaring slaves emancipated wouldn't mean that they really would be emancipated. No one misunderstood him....either by mistake or by intent!

Why is Being a Hero Revelent?

Granted, John McCain is a hero -- a genuine one, not like the way the term is grossly misused to refer to players of sports and the like.

A hero is someone who has risked life and limb for one or more others, with little regard for the self. There really does have to be a real risk, which may indeed result in death. And there has to be a large element of selflessness in it as well.

Ok, that being said, what in this admittedly honorable character trait of being heroic is relevant to holding the office of President of the United States?

Frankly, there would seem to be as many undesirable consequences of a "heroic" presidency as desirable ones. For example, would a "heroic" president willingly sacrifice the lives of fellow countrymen for some higher goal? Even if he sacrificed only himself, would that be a good thing? How many risks would a "heroic" president take? Would he rush an enemy bunker and with his dying breath toss a grenade into it? Would a "heroic" president consult anyone or act alone? How about his temper after having been tortured for years? Wouldn't he get pissed as hell at unpredictable times?

Isn't being a hero a highly individualistic thing....and isn't being a president intrinsically social?

Wouldn't a president have the obligation NOT to act heroically???

Hmmm.....

Stop the Madness!

I've been trying to enjoy the political combat this season, as I'm sure many are, but I keep getting distracted by fair and unfair commentators who are balanced and unbalanced, professional and unprofessional pols, elected and unelected and unelectable officials, news speakers and readers...and even many intelligent people!

Why?

Good question, glad you asked!

It's those god damn words that people rely on AS IF THEY HAD ANY MEANING!!

You know what I mean. "At this point in time" is a pretty good example. How about just "now"!?!

But there's a whole new crop of vacuous words that are now being over-worked.

So basically here are my talking points: at the end of the day, I'm not going to flip-flop on anything. I'll just pivot in case I want to surge, and you may vet me if you choose.